Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

As i was discussing with craig, If you've got work to do on your car and dont really have time to transport your car to a mechanic, or want it done over a weekend, or dont know what the fuuk your doing, let me know the quote and ill beat it by a considerable amount and help you out.

Cubes, i agree with the gt3540 being a '3rd gear' turbo, especially the typhoon spec 1.06 rear and also the .82 rear. Very impressive once on boost tho. I have done a little reasearch on a gcg gt3040 aswell, they are much the same to some extent.

Edited by Ryanrb25

i got a gt 30/40 highmount with a .82 and external gate on my car n they are a awesome turbo, when boost hits it hits HARD!!!

1st 2nd n 3rd gear, they arnt that laggy....

then again thats on a forged engine, i guess it'll be a bit laggy on a standard engine, but if u wanted it more reponsive put a rb25 or .63 exhaust housing on it, thats wat i had on it when it was a stock engine b4 it was blown up on the dyno....

Edited by ovrtym33
i got a gt 30/40 highmount with a .82 and external gate on my car n they are a awesome turbo, when boost hits it hits HARD!!!

1st 2nd n 3rd gear, they arnt that laggy....

then again thats on a forged engine, i guess it'll be a bit laggy on a standard engine, but if u wanted it more reponsive put a rb25 or .63 exhaust housing on it, thats wat i had on it when it was a stock engine b4 it was blown up on the dyno....

Probably a few other reasons why it's not as laggy but how does a forged engine make the car more responsive than a standard engine?

Lighter internals? Rods/pistons etc?

if that was the case, then 1/2 psi extra boost on a car with STD internals would take care of that.

Peeps generally do a rebuild with forged pistons and aftermarket rods to be able to cope with more HP, RPM & strength.........not for better response.

I am not a fan of the 3040 on the twin cam heads they are a bastardised turbo. :)

As you say boost hits hard that = lag.

I'd prefer a much more linear turbo that comes on earlier so it doesn't feel like it hits so hard due to lag.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
×
×
  • Create New...